About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
at damage control. u.n. ambassador susan rice's trip to capitol hill, she and the acting cia director, michael morel, meeting with republican senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham, who were not pleased with what they heard. >> it is clear that the information she gave the american people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. it was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations. >> in a statement after the meeting, ambassador rice said that neither she nor anyone in the administration intended to mislead the american people. but the breaking news concerns the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting direct
is the new video that documents event around the bin laden kill and it's chock full of controversy. c.i.a. opened the door and file to the movie producers. here is a cliff of "zero dark thirty." >> do you really believe this story? >> usama bin laden. yeah. >> what part convinceed you? >> her confidence. >> if you're right, the whole world is going to want in on this. ♪ ♪ >> eric: we're all watching, we're engaged and we'll all want to see that. but kimberly, should the c.i.a. allow hollywood inside their doors, inside their files? >> kimberly: there isn't up side except people who produce the movie will get paid and investors are lucky enough to get in on it financially will be paid off. people are entertained but to what expense to our national security? this is a movie they should haven't had the access to the file torse documents. jeopardize potential operation in field. now it's reckless, irresponsible and glorify the administration for a cull that was one that needed to happen but don't pat yourself on the back. >> eric: i have a big problem with our own c.i.a. opening the doors
is that the consulate in benghazi was not an embassy of any typical kind. it really looks like a cia listening station. the kind of security arrangements that were in place were inadequate but it wasn't an embassy. when you build an embassy, there's a formal process about the kinds of materials you use and the setback from the street and the kinds of security measures in place. benghazi, you know, didn't rise to that and as a sort of -- so, you know, there's sort of apples and oranges. but the fact is she's introduced a new line of criticism against ambassador rice. >> do you think it's relevant, peter -- do you think it's relevant the question that susan collins is now raising as part of, let's say the president did say, i want susan rice as my secretary of state, they have the process, they go before and the senators consider her, do you think it's legitimate, this issue that she's brought up now? >> well, a, it was 14 years ago. b, al qaeda unfortunately wasn't deemed to be a significant threat and, c, it's not even clear that she, you know, was in any way responsible for the lack of, you know, mov
the united states was rising and security was -- >> and the answer could be we had cia agents in that area -- >> absolutely. >> -- that needed to be protected. ambassador susan rice met with her strongest critics on capitol hill today to answer questions about benghazi, and the verdict was decidedly negative from her adversaries. senator john mccain, lindsey graham and senator ayotte left the meeting, here's the word, troubled. let's watch. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate. >> i'm more disturbed now than i was before. if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations, and you can say i don't want to give bad information. >> i'm more troubled today because it's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> well, then we go back to michael here. what i'm hearing today is ambassador rice when she went on "
-up. she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. >> reporter: senators graham, mccain and ayotte tellingers after yesterday's meeting that the information let them more disturbed and not reassured about rice's benghazi comments that which portrayed the a tack as a demonstration that spun out of control. cia director mike morrell with rice for the meetings initially told her the cia references to dropped in the talking points at the request of the fbi because the bureau did not want to compromise a ongoing criminal investigation. later cia officials called back to correct the record that in fact it was the agency was responsible. there was never any intention to mislead on benghazi rice said in a written statement, the talking points provided by the intelligence community and initial assessment were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. that the white house previousing spokesman jay carney tried to put the focus on the current investigation and not ambassador rice's people are moe interested in talking points for a sunday sho
of the cia and ambassador rice. clearly the impression that was given, the forgiven to the american people, was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong.forgive american people, was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. >> ambassador rice wasn't able to persuade -- >> good morning, mika. go ahead. i know. i'm tired. >> i'm tired. way too early. >> she was able to persuade senator joe lieberman. >> oh, good. is he still in the senate? >> he's retiring. >> okay. >> and won't be able to vote in a potential rice confirmation hearing. >> she said what she believed was true. and she was under no political influence from the white house. >> i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said on those sunday morning shows. >> in a statement following her meetings, ambassador rice acknowledged her initial in-saysment was incorrect saying while we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack as is on which the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in t
people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for administration. they pulled the same stunt. >> dana: i think she was failed by people around her. president obama should be mad at him. rather than be mad at senators. is he not concerned they got it wrong? purposefully so? >> brian
director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions i have and one of the questions that i didn't feel i got a satisfactory answer to, which is if you knew that even though the classified version, obviously, had references to al qaeda in it being involved or individuals with ties to al qaeda involved in it, how could you not know when you go on every sunday show and not include that fact that it would leave a very different impression to the american people, pa
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8